The
Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive
Government.

The Right
Upon Which All Other Rights Depend

South Dakota Legislature

Forfeits Their Public
Trust

Below are the charges made by the South Dakota
Legislature against Amendment E, which they have posted without
authority upon the official S.D. website, http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HCR1004p.htm

Counter-charges are hereby made that it is
grossly unethical, immoral, and criminal for the Legislators to
use South Dakota taxpayer dollars to pass a "Resolution," and to
influence a popular vote at said taxpayers' expense. It is
further unethical and immoral to use a taxpayer-financed website
to spread their propaganda in a vendetta against the People's
right to propose Initiatives, to wit, "All political power is
inherent in the People, .... [T]hey have the right in lawful and
constituted methods to alter or reform their forms of government
in such manner as they may think proper." Art. VI, Sec. 26. The
People have the absolute right to exercise their inherent power
to affect matters regarding their government without being
attacked by that same government, or being blasted by their own
website at their expense.

While it is acceptable for Legislators in their
private and individual capacity to vote at the polls on November
7th, it is totally unacceptable for these same Legislators to
betray the public trust by turning the Capitol Building into a
massive campaign headquarters, and using the auspices of their
official offices to campaign against the People's Amendment
E. Because the Legislature has not only presumed to "pass" that
which is immoral, but also that which they have absolutely no
jurisdiction to do, such so-called "Resolution" is null and void
for all purposes, and is as if it had never existed. It has
absolutely no force or effect of law. It is designed merely for
the purpose of deceiving and defrauding the voters of South
Dakota into not voting in favor of Amendment E.

Such action makes a total mockery of the election
process, and reduces the election process down to the level of
a Banana Republic, wherein People are afraid to appear at the
polls and vote. What's more, it calls into suspect the
after-results of the voting, to wit, was it an honest election?
It serves merely to deteriorate the People's faith in all
government processes, which breaks down sound government and
lends to confusion and eventual open anarchy. When the People
cannot trust their government with the voting process to be
honest, what do we have left?

This principle against altering, influencing, or
tampering with the outcome of elections is so strong that not
even the Governor of South Dakota can veto the People's
Initiative process. "The veto power of the Executive shall not
be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the People."
Art. III, Sec. 1, South Dakota Constitution. Further, the same
Constitution also forbids the Legislature from tampering with
the election process, to wit, "Elections shall be free and
equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time
interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage
[votes]." Art. VII, Sec. 1 Re:
Elections.

Response is hereby made to the charges issued by
the Legislature of South Dakota against Amendment E. For
purposes of an orderly response, we assign a maroon colored
Roman Numeral to each and every charge responded to:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,
Urging the voters of South Dakota to reject the Judicial
Accountability Initiated Law (J.A.I.L.), which will be submitted
to South Dakota voters in November 2006, designated Amendment E.

I.
WHEREAS, Amendment E was drafted
by a resident of California and the petitions were circulated by
paid out-of-state persons; and

II.
WHEREAS,
the Amendment E petition failed to get more than a few thousand
signatures in California, and thus was never submitted to
California voters; and

III.
WHEREAS,
South Dakota voters were told that Amendment E simply provided
for a remedy for intentional judicial misconduct; and

IV.
WHEREAS,
if approved by the voters, Amendment E would actually allow
lawsuits against all South Dakota citizen boards, including
county commissioners, school board members, city council
members, planning and zoning board members, township board
members, public utilities commissioners, professional licensing
board members, jurors, judges, prosecutors, and all other
citizen boards; and

V.
WHEREAS,
Amendment E would authorize and encourage jury nullification in
South Dakota, which was previously rejected overwhelmingly by
South Dakota voters in 2002; and

VI. WHEREAS,
Amendment E would prohibit summary judgment, a legal remedy
currently available and used to quickly and inexpensively rid
our courts of frivolous lawsuits; and

VII.
WHEREAS, Amendment E would permit
convicted felons, whose convictions have been affirmed by our
Supreme Court, to sue the prosecutors who prosecuted the felons,
the jurors who voted to convict the felons, and the judges who
sentenced the felons, thus burdening our courts and citizens
with countless expensive and needless lawsuits; and

VIII. WHEREAS,
the author of Amendment E has publicly stated that with the
passage of Amendment E, Judicial Accountability Initiated Law
members from across the country will "purposely drive to South
Dakota...just for the privilege of getting a traffic ticket so
you can demand a jury trial. I anticipate traffic courts to be
among the first courts to all but totally close...," thus
depriving South Dakota citizens of their constitutional right of
access to our courts and making it clear that Amendment E is not
intended to help cure any alleged problems with South Dakota
courts; and

IX.
WHEREAS, if approved, Amendment E
would establish a new entity to investigate complaints with an
initial budget of two million six hundred fifty thousand
dollars, plus the cost of a facility, with authority to hire as
many employees as it deemed appropriate without legislative
appropriation, consultation, review, or approval; and

X.
WHEREAS, the South Dakota
Constitution already provides for the Judicial Qualifications
Commission, which hears complaints and investigates allegations
of judicial misconduct, and operates very economically, with an
average annual expenditure of eleven thousand five hundred
fifty-nine dollars over the past ten years; and

XI.
WHEREAS, if approved, Amendment E
would violate the federal Constitution, thereby subjecting South
Dakota taxpayers to millions of dollars in damages and attorney
fees; and

XII.
WHEREAS, Amendment E would be
devastating to the South Dakota economy, harming economic
development and driving existing businesses from South Dakota:

XIII.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the House of Representatives of the Eighty- first Legislature
of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein,
that the South Dakota Legislature strongly urges all South
Dakota voters to protect our citizen boards, to protect our
system of justice, to protect economic development, to protect
all our citizens from frivolous lawsuits that would be
authorized by the Judicial Accountability Initiated Law, and to
vote against Amendment E.

Rebuttal:

I.The J.A.I.L. Amendment was originally drafted in California for
the State of California under its initiative process. People
from all fifty states (including South Dakota) independently, of
their own volition, contacted its author, and requested to
advance the cause of J.A.I.L. in their own respective states,
such being an inherent right of the People pursuant to the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution under freedom of association
-- a right which every government official in South Dakota has
sworn with an oath to defend and protect. What's more, these
same officials are subject to the South Dakota Constitution,
which states, "To secure these rights governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed." Art. VI, Sec. 1.

As to the charge, "[T]he petitions were
circulated by paid out-of-state persons;" that is incorrect. The
truth is that Amendment E was adapted in South Dakota for South
Dakotans, and the vast majority of the petition circulators were
South Dakotans. What's more, this charge by the Legislature is
moot, for if its collection of signatures were performed
illegally, then why is Amendment E officially on this November's
ballot? Please explain. You have all the petitions containing
the signatures of the circulators before you. Prove your
accusation, or admit your falsehood!

II.The Amendment E petition is a South Dakota measure and does not
apply to California.

The People of California were not able to gather
sufficient signatures for the California J.A.I.L. amendment by
volunteers (requiring almost 700,000 valid signatures to qualify
for the ballot), nor were they able to raise the necessary funds
of about one million dollars to finance the California
amendment. (California J.A.I.L. has been informed by
professional signature-gathering companies that never in the
history of California has any proposed constitutional amendment reached the ballot by volunteers).

III.
True. No rebuttal.

IV.
Our Founding Fathers wisely established our system of three
distinct, separate, and independent branches of government. This
principle is preserved in the South Dakota Constitution, "The
powers of the government of the state are divided into three
distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial;
and the powers and duties of each are prescribed by this
Constitution." Art. II. No powers of one branch shall function
within that of another.

Amendment E specifies its application as
exclusively to the judicial branch of government, and no other.
By definition (¶1b) it applies only to "justices, judges,
magistrate judges, judges pro tem, and all other persons
claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity;" and by definition
(¶2) it applies only to "deliberate violations of law, fraud or
conspiracy, intentional violations of due process of law,
deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without
jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any
deliberate violations of the Constitutions of South Dakota or
the United States."

By the same definition, Amendment E cannot apply
to administrative agencies, such as boards,
councils, commissions, etc., since they are limited in
jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate with finality the violations
specified in ¶2.

The requirement in ¶11 that "the complainant
shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies
available in this State" carries with it, by operation of law,
the requirement that all administrative remedies be exhausted
before petitioning for judicial remedies. The laws of the State
of South Dakota recognizes the differences between exhaustion of
administrative remedies and exhaustion of judicial remedies.
Amendment E likewise recognizes that distinction in law that
administrative forums are not of the judicial branch of
government, nor can they be "judges." Nor can "judges" apply to
prosecutors, and certainly not jurors, who are not an office
of government, nor any part of the three branches of government,
but is the People, who do not take an oath of office. Therefore,
all final dispositions regarding the above violations rest only
with the judiciary, contrary to your charges made against
Amendment E.

V. Our
Founding Fathers designed our government to be fully accountable
directly to the People through the jurors. We leave to them the
decisions of life and death of matters regarding serious
offenders. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a grand jury..." Amendment V, U.S. Constitution. In other
words, there is no government powers that can cause a
person accused of murder to answer, much less face a trial,
unless there is a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Now
is that power, or what? Absolutely. It is a power that all
government in all its majesty and power, cannot exercise.

Thomas Jefferson accordingly wrote: "I consider
trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a
government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."
And, in 1794, in the first jury trial held before the U.S.
Supreme Court, John Jay, the first Chief Justice instructed
jurors thusly: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges
of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are
the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your
power of decision. The jury has a right to judge both the law as
well as the fact in controversy." [Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S.
1 (1794)]. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice, ruled
in 1920 "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth
of both law and fact." (Horning v. District of Columbia, 254
U.S. 135). This principle has never been reversed by any court
in this country, nor can it be.

Your argument that "Amendment E would authorize
and encourage jury nullification in South Dakota, which was
previously rejected overwhelmingly by South Dakota voters in
2002;" is bogus for the following reason. Jurors have always
from the beginning retained this power. The fact is that the
Amendment to which you refer was off point, failing to present
the proper question whether the jurors should be informed of
their powers. Judges have never denied the powers of the jury,
but have ruled instead that the jurors may not be informed of
their power. Your charge presents an example of why we do need
Amendment E to hold judges accountable, not why we do not need
Amendment E. Judges have deceived the People by not allowing
them to be informed of their rights.

Under Amendment E it assures judges shall receive
this right in a criminal trial. To deny judges this right before
a jury would be to deny them due process, and provide grounds
for reversal on appeal. Common sense dictates that we, as
Americans, cling fast to the historical heritage of our jury
system, and never depart from it as instructed by Thomas
Jefferson.

VI.
Amendment E says nothing about summary judgment. Any judge in
South Dakota may issue summary judgment, or any other
disposition, according to law. Only if he willfully violates the
law under ¶2 can a judge be liable under Amendment E.

You mention getting rid of cases "Quickly and
inexpensively." Nothing wrong with that, provided that "Quickly
and inexpensively" is not to the exclusion of obedience to the
law. "Justice" must be the primary objective of South Dakota
courts, not rushes to judgment. Are we in agreement on that?

VII.
As stated in IV, above, Amendment E, by definition (¶1b) applies
only to "justices, judges, magistrate
judges, judges pro tem, and all other persons claiming to be
shielded by judicial immunity;" and further, by definition (¶2)
it applies only to "deliberate
violations of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violations
of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts,
judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful
conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violations of the
Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States."

Amendment E specifically maintains security by
precluding those people within "imprisonment, or parole from a
conviction of a felonious crime..." See Paragraph 12. Amendment
E will actually decrease the number of expensive and needless
lawsuits by enforcing the proper adjudication of cases by honest
judges. Honesty, that's what you seek, is it not?

VIII.
Such comment made by the author of the J.A.I.L. amendment does
not reflect any provision of Amendment E and is irrelevant
thereto. Any stated anticipation by the author does not dictate
the terms of Amendment E. The intention of Amendment E is that
stated in the Amendment itself. The Amendment shows on its face
that access to our courts for South Dakota citizens will be
guaranteed by assuring that judges will act honestly according
to law.

The South Dakota Constitution clearly provides in
Article VI, Sec. 20, "All courts shall be open, and every man
for an injury done him in his property, person or reputation,
shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice,
administered without denial or delay." Amendment E enforces
that right under ¶2, to wit, "No immunity shall extend to any
judge of this State for... any deliberate violation of the
Constitution[ ] of South Dakota...."

IX.
Amendment E provides: "Each Juror shall receive a salary
commensurate to that of a Circuit Court judge, prorated
according to the number of days actually served by the
Juror." ¶9. This means that if the judges behave
themselves, Special Grand Jurors will have no cases
pending before them, then salary for the Jurors will be
zero. If the Jurors work only 30 days out of the year, they
are paid for just the 30 days they worked and no more. It
would be good if all governments worked this efficiently,
and perhaps by the example of Amendment E, it will.

Obviously the $2,650,000 cost as an operational
expense for the Special Grand Jury claimed by this Legislature,
whose credibility is already questionable, states no basis in
fact to which anyone could calculate. It is just a figure pulled
from the air designed to frighten the voters of South Dakota
that this thing is going to cost a lot of bucks. The Legislature
must be presuming that the Jurors will be working full time
throughout the year in order to keep up with the extensive
judicial corruption in South Dakota. This indicates that they
believe the judges in South Dakota are extremely corrupt
and evil, and that there is a very great need for Amendment
E. This statement does not speak well of their opinions of the
South Dakota judges. We would like to see the chambers of the
Special Grand Jury dark most of the year without any matters
pending before them.

Assuming the Legislature's position that the
judges of South Dakota are really evil and corrupt, and the
Special Grand Jury will be busy full time, then they must also
calculate into the equation the plus side, to wit, the
large number of fines, fees, and forfeitures paid into Amendment
E by the judges. All this money will ultimately be channeled
into the State Treasurer of South Dakota, creating a "profit"
for the state. One can read about this provision in ¶¶6, 10.
The objective of Amendment E is to be self-supporting, and not
chargeable to the taxpayers of South Dakota. ¶8.

After Amendment E becomes in force, and if
it costs the taxpayers anything out of the pocket, it can only
mean that the Legislature of South Dakota is failing or refusing
to do their job, ¶8. Now the Legislature would not willfully
violate that constitutional "shall," would they? We have already
proved that they have willfully violated Art. VII, Sec. 1 by
"passing" this "Resolution," which we believe is an
on-going criminal act of this Legislature designed to continue
each and every day until November 7, 2006. Once the public finds
out what they are doing, they are going to have some very
serious explaining to do.

Agreed, the Legislature is going to have to
provide for a facility as set forth in ¶5. Staffing for the
Special Grand Jury will depend upon the workload generated by
corrupt judges in South Dakota. The financing for the operation
of the Special Grand Jury will work like an accordion-- when
there is a workload, it will expand to meet the demand. If there
is no workload, it will go dark.

X.
Amendment E will not interfere with, nor replace, the Judicial
Qualifications Commission of South Dakota. In fact, ¶21 states
"The provisions of this Amendment are in addition to other
redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive." These
words are intend to include the JQC, but is not limited thereto.

Litigants have the right to present any complaint
they may wish to the JQC, but honesty dictates that those
complaining be informed that, as a victim, they will never be
made whole of their injury inflicted by a judge as would be the
case under Amendment E.

If the Judicial Qualifications Commission can
bring about honest judges throughout South Dakota for only
$11,559 a year, that is very good. But this statement runs into
a credibility problem. A person on Social Security receives more
than that per year. Frankly we are amazed that the
Legislature can possibly even pay the rent on a building to
house the Judicial Qualifications Commission, much less hire a
single employee to hear and decide all the complaints against
the judges of South Dakota on that amount. A medical doctor
called this to our attention by challenging one of these
senators signing on to this "Resolution" on what the $11,559
figure represented, and suggested the JQC could not be the
slightest bit effective running on that budget. He asked if that
figure represented the salary paid to a boy to come in
occasionally to carry out all the filed complaints to the
dumpster. Surely the Legislature is not including
telephones, lights, heat, water bills, supplies and office
equipment in this annual operational budget of $11,559 for this
"judicial commission." This judicial commission must obviously
be a shell -- non-existent. But then, what is this $11,559
for? Padding for someone's pocket? It appears this JQC needs to
be investigated. Now, if we can only find an honest person in
government to perform an investigation of those who investigate
judges! Then we must determine how much we should pay him. Do
you really expect the South Dakotans to believe you
Legislators on this? It's a joke, just like your entire
"Resolution" of lies, fraud and propaganda at taxpayer's
expense. Please, somebody, drop by this "Judicial Qualifications
Commission" and say "Hi," and have the staff there introduce
themselves to you and show you around.

Honestly, should this JQC be the least bit
successful in enforcing the laws of South Dakota against
miscreant judges, it might prevent the violations specified in
¶2, which would reduce or eliminate altogether the convening
of the Special Grand Jury to hear complaints about the
judiciary.

The same is said regarding the appellate process.
Indeed we hope that all cases are resolved at the appellate
level without the necessity of anyone having to file a single
complaint against a judge with the Special Grand Jury. The mere
existence of the SGJ is anticipated to influence justice in the
courts more than will the Special Grand Juries' actual actions
just as the roar of a lion influences more deer than does its
teeth and claws, which affects but one deer.

XI.
We are told by the South Dakota Legislature "...Amendment E
would violate the federal Constitution, thereby subjecting South
Dakota taxpayers to millions of dollars in damages and attorney
fees;"

There is no basis supplied in which to respond
to this charge other than to point out that for years we have
placed the basis for Amendment E under challenge by numerous
lawyers, professors, and legal minds to arrive at a genuine
federal constitutional challenge of its provisions, and we have
yet to find anyone able to find a hole in it.

XII.
We are told by the Legislature, "Amendment E would be
devastating to the South Dakota economy, harming economic
development and driving existing businesses from South Dakota:"

The answer to this charge against Amendment E
calls for a speculation on the future such as predicting the
stock market whether it will go up or down. Since we do not deem
the South Dakota Legislature to be a prophet, knowing the
future, nor do we deem them to have special insight as
to the future, we respond to their charges based upon common
sense.

By holding judges accountable to the laws of
South Dakota, honesty will spring forth abundantly, resulting in
honest dealings with one another. Honest dealings will mean
honest business. Honest business will result in prosperity for
South Dakota beyond imagination. Businesses will be drawn to
South Dakota in flocks and droves, contrary to California where
the businesses are departing in droves.

Once businesses hear about South Dakota, they
will relocate there, bringing with them their dollars and their
job opportunities. Unemployment will go next to zero.

Everyone will be
truly amazed over the improvement of the quality of life in
South Dakota, in which crime will go down enormously,
resulting in the need for fewer Bar Members, prosecutors,
judges, bailiffs, prisons in South Dakota.

XIII.
What is so sorely lacking is the protection of the People's
rights from corrupt judges which are creating the need for
Amendment E. J.A.I.L. is the only means available to South
Dakota by which they may exercise their duty to renew the use
and protection of their inherent rights, by enforcing the
Constitution through holding the guardians of those rights,
i.e., the judges, accountable to them for unconstitutional
judicial action. Amendment E will be the best thing that has
ever happened to South Dakota!